Interview: Representative Bobbi Andera

Representative Bobbi Andera of South Dakota House District 10 joins Dave Roetman to discuss her work on the Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee, over-the-counter medications and the upcoming special legislative session on the prison. Andera says the committee, chaired by Representative Josephine Garcia, is examining regulation of medical marijuana and unregulated products sold under the hemp provisions of the Farm Act. She says she has requested a bill to let South Dakotans obtain ivermectin, fenbendazole or hydroxychloroquine over the counter or directly from a pharmacy. On the prison, she says many constituents question the need for 1,500 maximum-security beds at the Benson location, discusses the Jameson Annex, and urges attention to recidivism and re-entry. She also questions whether SB 73 should be repealed, linking it to the loss of Star Academy for juvenile offenders. Topics: Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee, hemp regulation, over-the-counter medications, ivermectin, special legislative session, prison location, maximum-security beds, recidivism, SB 73, juvenile justice, Star Academy “We saw during 2020, during the Covid scare, that there were certain medications where if a physician were to prescribe those medications, they could face punitive action. It should never be that way.” - Bobbi Andera Rhoden's prison chief quits as $650M vote on penitentiary replacement looms Bobbi Andera 2025 bills - link Full transcript About this transcript: It was machine-transcribed in-house and then edited for readability. Filler words and false starts are removed, and the meaning is unchanged. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Dave Roetman: This is the Making Waves Podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We’re here with Bobbi Andera, District 10 House. Welcome Bobbi! Bobbi Andera: Hi Dave, how are you? Dave Roetman: Doing well, thank you very much. Let’s get right into it. We want to talk about the marijuana oversight committee that you’re a member of. So what’s going on with that? I hear there’s some updates. Bobbi Andera: Yes, so I am part of the medical marijuana oversight committee. My fellow House Representative became the Chairman. It is Chairman Josephine Garcia and she’s doing a fantastic job. And our goal right now with the Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee is really to look at regulation surrounding how medical marijuana is actually being implemented in South Dakota as well as some potential nefarious actors who have come in on the coattails of medical marijuana. You will see perhaps here in Sioux Falls many of the other larger cities that there are stores and shops that are going up right now and they are selling marijuana or derivatives of hemp that are questionable as far as their quality. We consider that a danger to the citizens and what we are doing right now is we are trying to find a way to regulate around that so that we can ensure that medical marijuana stays regulated and safe for the medical marijuana users but those that are coming in under the Farm Act actually because they deregulated hemp. So we have to put a few more guardrails around that so our children and even adults for that matter if they do need to access marijuana that they do so through appropriate channels. Dave Roetman: What is the purpose of the committee and what is the potential outcome from the committee? Bobbi Andera: Sure, the purpose of the committee is basically just to gather information from not only the industry but also from law enforcement, patients. Anybody really who would want to come forth as a citizen to express their concerns and or their suggestions as it relates to medical marijuana or anything that extends from that. The outcome of the committee is for us to basically take this information and go back to the executive board and to make suggestions, for legislation if we choose to do so. And I think that the legislation that we’re looking at right now is more about identifying where we can give law enforcement the appropriate tools to be able to go in and penalize I guess you could say or hold accountable these hemp facilities or these hemp derivative facilities that are kind of coming in underneath the surface and causing issues for our citizens. Dave Roetman: [inaudible] scientist in the medical field and Josephine Garcia is a medical doctor, so you’ve got some real expertise on that committee. We do. Bobbi Andera: And you know that this is just Great because when we do have our discussions we tend to ask questions from the scientific perspective that perhaps others may not have and we are just very concerned at the safety right now and the safety of our children is paramount and the vapes right now, and there are several other different types of... Hemp derivatives that are out there right now. We just feel it’s time for South Dakota to take a stand and say enough is enough. Many people in the industry have stated that well, it’s just by the wayside. It’s just gone by the wayside. Once you go medical marijuana, recreational is right around the corner. I agree with you and I did stand up for that. This is not what South Dakota wants. South Dakota does not want recreational, but they do want medical marijuana. So we are going to do our best to work around those particular concerns from the citizens as well as their desires for medical marijuana. Dave Roetman: Who else is on the medical marijuana committee? Bobbi Andera: There are people on the committee, a broad range of and diverse backgrounds. We have Chief Thum here from Sioux Falls. We have Sheriff West, he’s from West River. We have two senators and we have two house members. [05:00] So the two house members of course are myself and Representative Garcia. And the senators are Senator Nelson and Senator Carley. Very, very, very good strong senators as well. We have been working together to make sure that we stay very, very focused. We also have patient advocates on this committee. We have medical people on the committee that are not either House Representatives or Senators. So I think we have a good diverse background that can offer a lot of great input in order for us to do something for the citizens of South Dakota. Dave Roetman: Changing to another subject, tell us about one of your upcoming bills that you’ve got coming up that you’re going to submit in this next legislative session. Bobbi Andera: I’ve already submitted to the Legislative Research Council that I would like a bill that addresses the ability for any South Dakota citizen to get either ivermectin, fenbendazole, or hydroxychloroquine either over the counter or directly through a pharmacy and not necessarily having to go through a physician. There are many many countries you know that basically you can just go to a store and pick it up. You don’t even need a doctor’s prescription. The concern that I have is that we saw during 2020, during the COVID scare, that there were certain medications where if a physician were to prescribe those medications, they could face punitive action. And it should never be that way. And the people have a choice. So I feel that it’s time for us to say, okay. Maybe it could be over-the-counter. Maybe it just needs to be dispensed through the pharmacy. But either way, people need access to medications that are going to help them through issues, whether it be colds, whether it be viruses, I mean there’s anecdotal evidence, there’s also statistical evidence that it did help during COVID, so for us to deregulate that would be good. Dave Roetman: I think that most of that whole industry should be deregulated. I mean, if you need a doctor’s prescription for something, it should be for drugs that really need expertise to administer. Correct. If you can have your average farmer can apply ivermectin to their horse. Right. Okay, that doesn’t require particular expertise. You can do it to yourself. It’s not that complicated. You don’t really need a medical degree to dispense or safely self-medicate. Right. The upcoming special legislative session is in two weeks about the prison. Is there any news what’s happening on that front? Is there any movement? What can you tell us? Bobbi Andera: Well, there was some significant movement with Wasko’s resignation. Yes. A lot of people were looking forward to that. A lot of people demanded that. Dave Roetman: Yes, since January. Correct. And not just the 19 people who signed that letter, it’s several people who were not signing that letter were the first ones to demand their resignation. Bobbi Andera: Right, you’re talking about the letter that was published in the Dakota Scout. Correct. Yeah. That’s exactly right. Dave Roetman: I talked to one person who thought that they could have asked, upwards of 40 legislators would have signed that if they’d have been asked. Yes. Bobbi Andera: And I think you probably would have gotten the majority of legislators to sign. Oh, more than 40. Absolutely, 100%. The thing that I’m hearing right now, I am out right now talking to my constituents and it’s about I would say about two out of seven of all of them that I’ve talked to, and I’ve talked to more than 60, I’m going on 70, I’m trying to get to 400, I want to get to 10% of my voting district, they have stated that they do believe a prison is necessary. This two out of seven the five out of seven are saying hold off and the reason they’re saying hold off is because they want to see more you know now that they’ve got the Wasko resignation they’re like is that enough let’s talk about recidivism let’s talk about re-entry let’s talk about juvenile delinquents It starts at the beginning. Do we need to repeal SB 73? These are big questions we have to ask. Now we do have a committee that’s working on that right now. I couldn’t particularly name who’s on the committee, but I know that they are looking at recidivism rates and re-entry and programs when they come out of the prison system. [10:00] The concern that many of the constituents in my district have or that they’ve expressed to me is that they don’t understand why 1,500 max security beds. They’re having a hard time trying to understand that because right now Jameson isn’t even filled up. Dave Roetman: Let’s define the terms there. So Jameson Annex, which was built in 1993. Perfectly modern facility. Has beds for 540. Correct. Maximum security prisoners. Correct. You can put medium security or minimum security if you want to but it has 540 maximum security prisoners and we have what less than 200 maximum security prisoners. Less than 200. So we’ve got almost three times as much space as we need for maximum security than we need right now right so why build any more maximum security prison space at all exactly. Bobbi Andera: And the concern that a lot of my constituents have whether it is something that it’s just their opinion or maybe they’ve got more information than i have i don’t know but they’re very concerned that we could end up being a state where we ship prisoners in And we certainly do not want to be a state that ships in maximum security prisoners. We are not in the business of prisons. That’s not what South Dakota is about. So there’s a lot of concern with- The other concern they have is they don’t want it centralized because when you centralize and you know as any libertarian will tell you want decentralization. You don’t want everything in one spot where you can have all of that power concentrated. You need to keep it dispersed. People are talking about why can’t we build on to Springfield? Has that been talked about? Why can’t you know we build on to the women’s prison? Why can’t we build a smaller prison at this Benson location? Why 1500 beds? Why do we need 1500 max security beds? A lot of people are coming in and they’re saying well those 1,500 max security, but those can also house minimum. Dave Roetman: Security. That’s a really expensive solution to a non-problem. Bobbi Andera: Exactly. Exactly. KATHRYN That is exactly right. So people are starting to ask the question, why are we pushing for such an expensive solution to a non-problem, like you just said? Dave Roetman: Let’s define a few terms here. So maximum security prison, and this is off the top of my head. That’s multiple times it needs poured concrete correct whereas a minimum security prison you can make those out of cinder block you can build them a lot faster right and we literally don’t need any maximum security prisons for the space in south dakota now or in the conceivable future right. Bobbi Andera: Right And there’s a lot of people out there that are also saying to ship our maximum security prisoners out. Would that be worth it? And one has to look at, okay, let’s look from the beginning to the end. When we have maximum security prisoners here, usually they have family that move with them. Usually, not all of them, but some of them. With that, they’re going to put strain on the system, the infrastructure, the schools, the programs, the social programs, Medicaid, everything. So if we are planning on this many and we also have an issue with re-entry and recidivism, I mean what are we at, 45% recidivism? I mean it might even be higher since I last looked. So I think we have a problem. That we need to focus on instead of putting the band-aid saying, here’s your prison, this is the solution, when in all actuality, it’s really not the solution. The solution is to focus on why crime is so high in South Dakota, and in my particular district, Sioux Falls. Dave Roetman: Let’s go back to something you said mentioned earlier, SB 73. Yeah. Now that was a bill that was passed many years ago before you were in the legislature but that if you’re... I can put you on the spot here i believe that was passed and the it was under the premise that it was going to reduce recidivism and reduce the number of people in prison correct and that was going to reduce the strain on our system has that come. Bobbi Andera: About it’s kind of a catch-22 and let me tell you why because there’s only certain infractions that happen within schools where you can actually put that child in like a juvenile delinquency center or support system. Dave Roetman: And just so for clarity, you’re talking about SB 73 and what it did. Correct. So it was a bill that dealt with juvenile delinquency in school. [15:00] Bobbi Andera: Correct. Let me go back and explain. So SB 73 basically removed specific infractions for a juvenile delinquent, I hate even using those words, but I’m just going to use them for purposes of this conversation, for them to be able to be pushed into the system for correction. What happened was anything outside of those infractions were simply disregarded and the school had to take care of them. So if you had a kid like graffiti or breaking a window, they could not be put into the system of juvenile delinquency. The school themselves had to manage that particular student and their care and their oversight, which then brings a lot of pressure onto the superintendents and principals because now all of a sudden they have to be counselors. They’re left holding the bag they’re left holding the bag not only financially but also emotionally with all of the other students making sure all the other students are safe and mentally because it’s very taxing when you’re in school and you’re like when is that child going to act up again because what we used to have we used to have what was called Star Academy and Star Academy was kind of like a military academy for juvenile delinquent and so they would be shipped off to Star Academy and you know they would be you know taken care of there they were helped they were given appropriate oversight they were boot camp it was like a boot camp exactly it was a boot camp it’s like exactly i think a lot of the marines actually ran it to be honest with you former marines that works it does it works and so they once they brought SB 73 in they said well We don’t need Star Academy anymore. Well, why? Well, when we reduce the amount of infractions that are allowed for them to be sent to something like a Star Academy. Dave Roetman: But you’re not reducing the actual number of infractions. Infractions overall. Bobbi Andera: It’s going to look like you’re going down. And it looks like oh we have no more juvenile delinquents but that was never the answer because that’s where it always starts is with the juvenile delinquents so what we’re doing right now is we’re actually pulling data from the legislative research council or utilizing the legislative research council to get information on exactly what type of increase we saw in the prison system about three or four years after we initiated SB 73. Dave Roetman: And I’m sure you’ve been hearing from some of the school administrators, superintendents, and principals about this too. Bobbi Andera: Absolutely. We had a meeting with the superintendents, I believe it was six or seven across the state, and all of them agreed that SB 73 has put a strain on their school systems. If it were repealed, they would be very happy. Dave Roetman: So that is under discussion. Bobbi Andera: It’s under discussion. Dave Roetman: Well that is fascinating. Do you have any final thoughts? Bobbi Andera: As a representative of District 10, I am here to represent everyone of District 10 regardless of race, gender, creed background. Political affiliation. Political affiliation, exactly. And as a representative, I need to listen to my people. And so that’s why I’m out there. That’s why I’m canvassing. I want to hear their voice. If they have any questions, I’d like to give them clarity. And I just want to let the people of District 10 know you might get a knock on your door and it might be me. That sounds great. Dave Roetman: Bobbi, thanks for being with us. This has been the Making Waves podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We’ve been here with representative Bobbi Andera of district 10. Thanks, Bobbi. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit daveroetman.substack.com